Radiohead's New EP?

[pure_mercury]

everyone and their dad listened to depeche mode, massive attack, tricky and aphex twin before kid a came out. radiohead just took a good thing and made it their own and then ended up influencing alot of cats that in turn made some pretty good music, too. and they didnt step on ANY of their influences along the way. i read in one interview where they said something akin to how deep down they wish they were massive attack. they are showing love to their influences without compromising artistic integrity.

What the hell does it mean to "step on an influence?" I have no idea what you are talking about here. And I don't think many 14-year-old Americans were taking their dads to see Tricky and Jeru the Damaja in 1996, but I did.

and saying that thom yorke's voice isn't the most appropriate for electronic music shows you have alot to learn about electronic music. there's more of it and more kinds of it out there than you can possibly imagine.

No, it doesn't. It shows I have an opinion based on what I've heard. Don't make unfounded assumptions.

and thom yorke's voice was being used for electronic music before kid a came out.

check out "rabbit in your headlights" by unkle

I know that song. It is a mostly piano-driven spacy slow song, though. Not the same as some of the more pounding, rhythmic or atonal stuff Radiohead has done. Pretty good in any event. I like DJ Shadow's album better than the UNKLE album.

 

[r.a]

What the hell does it mean to "step on an influence?" I have no idea what you are talking about here.

in the context i was giving it meant taking a musical idea and emulating it in an unoriginal manner in a way that appears as if it was the imitator's idea, as to "step on" the original artist's toes.

lots of people do that. look at all the nu-metal bands that copied the deftones in the early 00's.

as well as all the schlock-rock bands whose lead singers use their baritone voices as to imitate eddie vedder's moaning.

 

[pure_mercury]

in the context i was giving it meant taking a musical idea and emulating it in an unoriginal manner in a way that appears as if it was the imitator's idea, as to "step on" the original artist's toes.

lots of people do that. look at all the nu-metal bands that copied the deftones in the early 00's.

as well as all the schlock-rock bands whose lead singers use their baritone voices as to imitate eddie vedder's moaning.

That always happens. Sometimes, those crappy bands were around before the good ones even got popular. A lot of the hype comes from record labels and radio programmers picking up on a trend, not bands suddenly switching styles. Most bands are not Godsmack (who were a crappy Alice in Chains cover band before changing to a crappy Alice in Chains-influenced post-grunge band).

 

[simulatedworld]

I guess my main problem with The Bends is I have a hard time telling one song from the other. I suppose one could say that about a lot of Radiohead albums, but I don't have that problem with the other albums.

Other than "Fake Plastic Trees" and "Street Spirit" the entire album runs together in one long smear.

I guess that's what happens when you're deaf in both ears.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

The Bends I found really bland. I liked OK Computer, Kid A, and Amnesiac a lot. Okay Computer was probably the best album of the 1990s. Hail to the Thief was okay, and In Rainbows was a little less okay.

And with all the talk about being cool, and esoteric lyrics, and all of that shit, I feel a little left out, since the thing I like the most about Radiohead is the sound of the music.

 

[pure_mercury]

The Bends I found really bland. I liked OK Computer, Kid A, and Amnesiac a lot. Okay Computer was probably the best album of the 1990s. Hail to the Thief was okay, and In Rainbows was a little less okay.

And with all the talk about being cool, and esoteric lyrics, and all of that shit, I feel a little left out, since the thing I like the most about Radiohead is the sound of the music.

There are better albums of the 1990s. Best album of 1997, perhaps. It would have some competition.

 

[simulatedworld]

I don't have a problem when bands do that. Bowie used to do it all the time, and it was great. U2 changed things up majorly with Achtung Baby, and ended up with arguably their second-best album. The problem was that they continued further down that road with Zooropa and Pop, and the songs weren't as good. I don't give bands points for being "experimental" if the music ends up weaker, and I think Radiohead did, especially after Kid A. I was just listening to Hail to the Thief, and it was just straight-up boring at parts. Radiohead is not a boring band.

Word. I agree about Amnesiac and HTTT definitely meandering/getting boring too much, but I think Kid A was significantly stronger than either of them. (Though probably still not as good as OK Computer or In Rainbows.

I was listening to Depeche Mode and Massive Attack and Tricky and Aphex Twin before Radiohead starting becoming more electronic and less guitar-driven. They never sounded like they were changing the world to me. I don't think Thom Yorke's voice is the most appropriate for electronic music songs, either.

I think "electronic music songs" is waaaaay too broad to declare anything relevant along those lines. Yorke's voice is very appropriate for Radiohead's music...not sure about any other electronic music, but he doesn't really sing on non-Radiohead music much, so it doesn't matter.

Usually the hushed, panicked tone of his voice is far more important to the feel of the song than what he's actually saying. Ni often writes lyrics that describe a general feeling in a very vague sense such that the lyrics don't really particularly even mean anything--they just combine with Yorke's unusual/paranoid tone to suggest a feeling, and that's pretty cool.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

...You all do realize that taste can't be argued in objective terms, right? It can't even really be argued.

 

[MacGuffin]

...You all do realize that taste can't be argued in objective terms, right? It can't even really be argued.

COLDPLAY RULEZ!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Gish]

This thread has become a pile of shit and ego comparisons.

You'd think after grasping at each other's cocks in the darkness for nine pages in hopes of making comparisons you'd get bored. Apparently not.

You like the music or you do not, the topic here was the possible release of a new EP, for which I am excited. This song was also released recently, not sure if it was mentioned in this thread [YOUTUBE="vztj_TnUQyY"]Harry Patch(In Memory of)[/YOUTUBE]

 

[pure_mercury]

This thread has become a pile of shit and ego comparisons.

You'd think after grasping at each other's cocks in the darkness for nine pages in hopes of making comparisons you'd get bored. Apparently not.

You like the music or you do not, the topic here was the possible release of a new EP, for which I am excited. This song was also released recently, not sure if it was mentioned in this thread [YOUTUBE="vztj_TnUQyY"]Harry Patch(In Memory of)[/YOUTUBE]

I mentioned it.

 

[pure_mercury]

...You all do realize that taste can't be argued in objective terms, right? It can't even really be argued.

Art can be argued in objective terms. You can't just say, "It's all a matter of taste." If you did, there would be no way to declare that The Beatles were better than Backstreet Boys. You have to be able to do that if you are going to criticize anything, otherwise it just becomes a bunch of people shrieking about biases.

 

[simulatedworld]

Art can be argued in objective terms. You can't just say, "It's all a matter of taste." If you did, there would be no way to declare that The Beatles were better than Backstreet Boys. You have to be able to do that if you are going to criticize anything, otherwise it just becomes a bunch of people shrieking about biases.

Yes, good point. This is precisely what I was trying to say in that recent "OMG LET'S COMPLAIN ABOUT CELEBRITY ENTERTAINERS THAT WE HATE AND NOT POST IT IN THE FLUFF ZONE THEN WHINE WHEN PEOPLE COMPLAIN THAT IT'S FLUFF" thread.

It's important to realize that there are two separate and distinct perspectives on art critique, both of which must be taken into account.

In truth, there is no total objectivity about who's a good artist and who isn't, but if you try to conceptualize art in purely deductive terms, then it's going to lead you to a lot of absurdities, like the whole "IT'S ALL 100% OPINION SO DON'T EVEN TRY TO SAY ANYTHING OBJECTIVE" thing, which is again, stupid.

So while we must accept that all art is fundamentally subjective, we can reach a sort of inductive quasi-objectivity given a lot of critical analysis and opinions of the informed over time. We can never say empirically that the Beatles were better than the Backstreet Boys, but if you don't agree with that, it's inductively highly probable that you're wrong.

Discussing art in "objective" terms, even though it never reaches true 100% objectivity, requires a significant background and context in terms of:

--What the prevailing styles of the time were
--What the band/artist was trying to accomplish (make a statement? sell records? get chicks?)
--How the band/artist compares to its contemporaries who produced similar music under similar conditions during the same time period

Certain Ti/Fi users, especially, have a hard time with this latter part sometimes because they think they can "objectively" evaluate art according to whatever arbitrary inner standards they've decided constitute "good art", and ignore the context/declare everything else that doesn't fit into that mold "obviously and objectively bad."

(These people usually think they know a lot more about music than they actually do.)

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Art can be argued in objective terms. You can't just say, "It's all a matter of taste." If you did, there would be no way to declare that The Beatles were better than Backstreet Boys. You have to be able to do that if you are going to criticize anything, otherwise it just becomes a bunch of people shrieking about biases.

But taste in music has no objectivity. Was is considered good is entirely in the mind, and in every mind it is different. And no one, you included, actually has a rational explanation for why you like any music at all. Response to music is inately irrational.

But I think you're right, there isn't a way to argue that the Beatles are better than the Backstreet Boys, and it does become a bunch of people shrieking about biases. That's why I think it's a waste of time.

If I argued about who demonstrated more skill, then yeah, I could try to make an objective argument. But that's not the same as saying someone made music I like.

 

[pure_mercury]

But taste in music has no objectivity. Was is considered good is entirely in the mind, and in every mind it is different. And no one, you included, actually has a rational explanation for why you like any music at all. Response to music is inately irrational.

But I think you're right, there isn't a way to argue that the Beatles are better than the Backstreet Boys, and it does become a bunch of people shrieking about biases. That's why I think it's a waste of time.

If I argued about who demonstrated more skill, then yeah, I could try to make an objective argument. But that's not the same as saying someone made music I like.

There is a major difference between "This music is good" and "I like this music." They are NOT the same things, and people need to figure that out.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

There is a major difference between "This music is good" and "I like this music." They are NOT the same things, and people need to figure that out.

Okay.

1: How do you prove that music is good?

and

2: What is your intended goal in proving to someone that music is good?

 

[01011010]

lol

coldplay is nothing but well-produced adult contemporary.

Does it matter?


I like Coldplay. I also like Radiohead.

 

[MacGuffin]

I guess my main problem with The Bends is I have a hard time telling one song from the other. I suppose one could say that about a lot of Radiohead albums, but I don't have that problem with the other albums.

Other than "Fake Plastic Trees" and "Street Spirit" the entire album runs together in one long smear.

I just listened to The Bends again.

I didn't even notice when "Just" was on.

 

[pure_mercury]

I just listened to The Bends again.

I didn't even notice when "Just" was on.

That's insane. "Nice Dream" is so midtempo and lilting until the brief loud section that "Just" is a blast out of left frield.

 

[MacGuffin]

That's insane. "Nice Dream" is so midtempo and lilting until the brief loud section that "Just" is a blast out of left frield.

I don't know what to say. It doesn't make an impact on me.